The SitePoint Forums have moved.

You can now find them here.
This forum is now closed to new posts, but you can browse existing content.
You can find out more information about the move and how to open a new account (if necessary) here.
If you get stuck you can get support by emailing forums@sitepoint.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Originally posted by Aes An omnipotent and omniscient being that has just existed since the beginning of time makes more sense? Sorry, but not to me.... How was he created; this too, is beyond the realm of science. Both are only in the realm of our minds, so to speak....

2 Corinthians 4:4
...in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.

"The world they pulled over your eyes, to blind you from the truth" - Morpheus

If evolution is wrong, how do you explain the difference between Africans, Asians, Caucasians, Chinese etc?
If we all came from Adam and Eve, why do all the races look different?
Evolution is the only way to explain it. Doubtless these questions will be answered by some kind of refusal to look the facts in the face.

Polymath, by science's own admittance 5000 years ago man decided to tame Canis Lupus (a breed of wolf). Since then Canis Familiaris (man's best friend) has emerged with more than 275 recognized breeds (by teh kennel clubs) and hundreds more that aren't.

If that happened in 5K years, why is it so preposterous for a dozen "breeds" of humans to emerge in 6-10K?

"Polymath, by science's own admittance 5000 years ago man decided to tame Canis Lupus (a breed of wolf). Since then Canis Familiaris (man's best friend) has emerged with more than 275 recognized breeds (by teh kennel clubs) and hundreds more that aren't."

And what is that an example of? Species aren't fixed. They evolve. So God didn't create domesticated dogs, as you just admitted. Did God create Chihuahuas, or did man? That's a nice example of accelerated evolution you've just given.

"new knowledge leads us to recognize in the theory of evolution more than a hypothesis...
...It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory."
- The Pope, 1996

There you have it, the Pope says evolution is more than a theory, and that the independent, unsought, unfabricated evidence is a significant argument in favour of evolution. That's from the man with a direct line to God.

My point is that evolution is fact.
Revilre said "I have studied evolutionary theory, and have found it is not based on sound science".
I take great objection to that - granted he gave examples of bad science by fraudulent scientists, but they were just self-serving examples to bolster his arguments. I could come up with examples of Creationists faking evidence and ignoring facts - but I don't need to. He clearly does.
I quoted the Pope:
"The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently..."
NB, the results of work that was not fabricated, although revilre claims otherwise.
That was my point, the same as the Pope's point, the evidence for evolution is practically overwhelming and is not based on bad science...which is why I believe it.

Tell me, what can you prove is completely false about the principles of creation, God, Jesus, etc. Not what can't be proven by christianity. For evolution to be fact you must be able to disprove some fundamental tenet of christianity, right?

A TWT said, very few people look to the pope for guidance, and none of them are in this thread. This is like the third thread you've pointed to the pope as proof and we keep telling you he's just like a glorified pastor to us.

"I have studied evolutionary theory, and have found it is not based on sound science"

Yeah, he also said he was right about everything he said and that he had the authority of god and arguing with him meant you were going to hell... What's your point? Want a radical fundamentalist christians are ashamed of? You/ve seen one now.

You asked how I could aco**** for caucasions, chienese, afraicans etc. I accounted for them, what is your argument?

Your argument seemed to be that the pope thought you were right... Which isn't what the text says at all. He doesn't say "god doesn't exist, evolution is the solution". He says the scientific evidence is huge regarding the precepts and concepts of evolution. He never said "believe thou in the god of science' or anything like taht so don't point to the pope as a believer in what you say or in agreeing wit hyou.

Jeremy,
>"For evolution to be fact you must be able to disprove some fundamental tenet of christianity, right?"
Wrong. I've realised the cause of this argument, which is that I wasn't clear at the beginning exactly what I meant - my fault, sorry - when I say Creationism, I mean that God created the Earth with all the creatures on it as they are now.
I am not arguing anything to do with whether God created the Earth, not at all, it is the 'all the creatures as they are now' bit that I am banging on about.
I quoted the Pope to demonstrate that evolution emphatically does not have to disprove some fundamental tenet of Christianity.

>"He never said "believe thou in the god of science' or anything like that so don't point to the pope as a believer in what you say or in agreeing with you."
He is agreeing with me, I'm afraid. He said evolution is more than hypothesis, and so am I. That sounds like agreement to me, unless the dictionary has changed since I last dipped into it. Anyway, I was not arguing that he was saying it disproved that God created the Earth, I was arguing that evolution and Christianity are compatible.

>"You asked how I could accountfor caucasions, chienese, afraicans etc. I accounted for them, what is your argument?"
Are you saying you believe in evolution then? You said on page four, "who said there was no minor speciations?" (not an exact quote but close). Lots of minor speciation gets you from a wolf to a chihuahua, this is evolution, whether it's through husbandry or not.

I'm not denying that I don't believe God created the Earth...but that's not what I was arguing here...I think that's what's been confusing us both. If not, I'm even more confused.